PDGA survey

[dmoore1998]

While it is arguable whether or not pool is a "sport" - the "physical exertion" is such that 90 year olds can run a rack pretty damn well - but the answer with pool leagues I've been in is no. Team compositions and singles brackets are all purely rating based, with no minimum number of female team members in most of the leagues I've played in (exception being mixed-doubles, where there was no verification of teammate sex).

Though, given the way initial ratings are set up - the APA leagues I've played in most teams found it competitively advantageous to have a female team member or two. So there are mechanisms in place to draw in female players. But no, no one was ID'd.

In a lot of cases, not until someone says "I don't think that person qualifies for this". But that's also where I think we may be heading towards different requirements for something like traditional PDGA C-Tiers, and the DGPT. Just like some professional sports leagues might drug test and the local YMCA does not, or monitor hormone levels, etc. More money and fewer players means a professional league can do more than a nationwide group with many players can.

 

[Three Putt]

So, that begs the question, who would say that a possible future policy should retroactively affect former results in the first place?!?!?

And secondly, why should they?!?!

If so, it would only mean that as per the then-current rules, it was allowed. No more.

Would Bradley Wiggins Jr. and Jennifer Allen be stripped of their world records retroactively (and see them stripped from history books) if the WFDF made the decision to no longer allow wind-assisted world records?
(See track & field, where wind-assisted records are not officially recognised; or swimming where certain suits did allow - for some time - for world records to be set).
No, there'd just be a line in the sand; drawn below Bradley's and Jennifers records, with an asterisk , that any record up to then did recognise wind-assisted distances.

I mean the Masters age used to be 35. When it was changed to 40, nobody said boo about any past Masters champions who were under 40 when they won. To me it would be stupid to think that anything would be done if a policy changed.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Not sure I agree about "disproportionate"...disproportionate to what? We have 2 groups. Cisgender women in disc golf, and post-transition transgender women in disc golf. To be disproportionate you'd need 2 things:

1. Another comparison, typically a 3rd group to compare to the control group of cisgender women...that wouldn't make a lot of sense.

2. A measure of disproportionate-ness which is more opinion than science (no doubt you could attach some level of science to it, but the term disproportionate tends towards measuring the DEGREE of difference when we know we have 2 different levels of difference within multiple comparisons.)

Maybe you can elaborate on what you think the other comparison is in order to make this potential competitive advantage disproportionate in comparison?

Purely speaking from a physical perspective (not even from an athletic performance potential perspective; which at least has a very large social component that is gendered - think: boy gets ball for birthday and goes and throws with dad to get better, girl gets doll for birthday and gets to play family in her pretend kitchen);

can we all agree that Eveliina Salonen has a different body than Henna Blomroos does?
That Sarah Hokom doesn't physically resemble Vaness Van Dyken?
That Paige Pierce doesn't resemble Valarie Doss?
That Hailey King doesn't resemble Catrina Allen?
That Kristin Tattar doesn't resemble Keide Tätte?
And that Juliana Korver doesn't resemble Jennifer Allen?

Within the cisgender population, the variance in body shapes, forms, and characteristics (that all COULD but not necessarily DO matter in their athletic performance potential) makes it a homogenously varied selection of bodies. And THAT is what matters.
Because THAT is the group a transgender women needs to be compared with.
Singular outliers can not and should not be used at the golden standard.
Paige Pierce shouldn't be the golden standard, nor should Juliana Korver, nor Vanessa Van Dyken.. Nor should Natalie Ryan.

Now, transgender women are said to be taller, wider shouldered, more wingspan-ey, more fast twitch muscle-y, and the list goes on.

Clearly physical traits are being attributed to assumed athletic performance potential.
But.... Doe Juliana Korver throw father because of being taller and more wingspan-ey than Jennifer allen? No, quite the contrary, actually. Most of the drives, Jennifer is expected to out-throw Juliana. Because reducing disc golf distance to a factor of body height and wingspan-iness is reducing what it takes to throw (far) to seemingly inconsequential bodily characteristics. Otherwise anyone with those characteristics would throw far.

Sidenote: Yes, almost all basketball players are (well) taller than the average person in their respective gender group. Does being tall make a person a good, or even a better basketballer? Absolutely not!
:Sidenote

And like that, for each physical attribute that we claim or assume it beneficial to being a better disc golfer, actual disc golfers disprove those assumptions day after day.
Which part of Paige Pierce's (with all respect) diminutive stature and build is where she hides the ability to throw 450ft???
Not in her height, not in her broad shoulders, not in her bone density, not in her wingspan, not in her inertia-creating mass. So, where in her body is it decided that she is to throw far?

She throws that far because of the (this is a social aspect, not a physical one) thousands hours of practice she will have dedicated to improving her skill, and the fact that (once again, this is a social aspect, not a physical one) she started being introduced to honing her athletic performance potential from a young age.

So, on to the actual question on how to establish a disproportionate advantage that - in the sport of disc golf AND in gender-based divisions - transgender women would have over cisgender women.

Please have an explicit look at sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the IOC Framework (which is why & how the PDGA Medical Subcommittee on eligibility for gender-based divisions are reviewing the current policy):
https://stillmed.olympics.com/media...airness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf

Section 6, on the actual scientific research, states:

Any restrictions arising from eligibility criteria should be based on robust and peer reviewed research that:
* demonstrates a consistent, unfair, disproportionate competitive advantagein performance and/or an unpreventable risk to the physical safety of other athletes;
* is largely based on data collected from a demographic group that is consistent in gender and athletic engagement with the group that the eligibility criteria aim to regulate; and
* demonstrates that such disproportionate competitive advantage and/or unpreventable risk exists for the specific sport, discipline and the event that the eligibility criteria aim to regulate.

That quoted section clearly mandates that transgender women (seeking access to gender-based divisions in disc golf) need to be compared to cisgender women in disc golf in gender-based divisions.

What should that science look like?
We collected data from cisgender women in gender based divisions in disc golf and made a normal distribution of the data points.
We collected data from transgender women in gender based divisions in disc golf and made a normal distribution of the data points.

If those data points largely overlap it is proven there is NO disproportionate advantage (on grounds of physical atributes a transgender woman may retain from having experienced male puberty), and eligibility criteria (such as the current policy that does so on grounds of testosterone in blood levels verification) MAY NOT NEED TO BE put/kept in place, because the transgender women - statistically - fit within the normal distribution for the cisgender women population.

If those data points largely do NOT overlap AND they consistently show to be mismatching on the larger/better side of the graph, then it is proven there IS disproportionate advantage (on grounds of physical atributes a transgender woman may retain from having experienced male puberty), and eligibility criteria (such as the current policy that does so on grounds of testosterone in blood levels verification) DO NEED TO BE put/kept in place, to help lower and limit the disproportionate advantage to be - statistically - within the normal distribution for the cisgender women population.

If those data points largely do NOT overlap AND they consistently show to be mismatching on the smaller/lower/worse side of the graph, then it is proven there IS - in fact - disproportionate DISadvantage (on grounds of physical atributes a transgender woman may retain from having experienced male puberty), and eligibility criteria (such as the current policy that does so on grounds of testosterone in blood levels verification) DO NOT NEED TO be put in place, to help lower and limit the disproportionate advantage to be - statistically - within the normal distribution for the cisgender women population.

 

[Arisugawa]

In Europe, many sports organisations do indeed require photo ID when registering (liability being one of the driving factors).

During my first period as a board member, I already advocated for the PDGA moving towards a "PDGA members need to verify their identity" (combined with "only PDGA members should be allowed to play in sanctioned events").

I have often wondered why it is allowed to get memberships for cats, puppies, and infants. I understand this is relic from another era when the sport was super casual and the governing body was about the same temperament. But the larger it gets and the more its membership data is scrutinized and used to show growth and expansion, it seems like membership ought to a little bit more than "Tippy the tabby somehow got membership number 275,000, hur-hur-hur...."

 

[txmxer]

I have often wondered why it is allowed to get memberships for cats, puppies, and infants. I understand this is relic from another era when the sport was super casual and the governing body was about the same temperament. But the larger it gets and the more its membership data is scrutinized and used to show growth and expansion, it seems like membership ought to a little bit more than "Tippy the tabby somehow got membership number 275,000, hur-hur-hur...."

money is money...you want to give it to them, they will take it!

PS: just P.O's me because Tippy has a better rating than me.

 

[roblee]

............

.........
Again here I am just playing devils advocate say tomorrow Paul mcbeth said I'm transitioning to a female. How would you react? Knowing he's the GOAT and now will dominate the FPO division.

............

..............

..........
As for the whataboutism to end all whataboutisms, Paul McBeth saying they(sic) are transgender,
Already the fact that you still refer to Paul McBeth as "he" in that hypothetical shows the disingenuity of the question, but I'll respond nevertheless............

Good grief ginger. medic is posting inquisitively and you brand him as disingenuous because he uses a pronoun you deem incorrect in a hypothetical question about something Paul hypothetically said he is doing? I don't understand the haste to strike out and disparage a person's character over a perceived misnomer.

 

[dmoore1998]

Purely speaking from a physical perspective (not even from an athletic performance potential perspective; which at least has a very large social component that is gendered - think: boy gets ball for birthday and goes and throws with dad to get better, girl gets doll for birthday and gets to play family in her pretend kitchen);

can we all agree that Eveliina Salonen has a different body than Henna Blomroos does?
That Sarah Hokom doesn't physically resemble Vaness Van Dyken?
That Paige Pierce doesn't resemble Valarie Doss?
That Hailey King doesn't resemble Catrina Allen?
That Kristin Tattar doesn't resemble Keide Tätte?
And that Juliana Korver doesn't resemble Jennifer Allen?

Within the cisgender population, the variance in body shapes, forms, and characteristics (that all COULD but not necessarily DO matter in their athletic performance potential) makes it a homogenously varied selection of bodies. And THAT is what matters.
Because THAT is the group a transgender women needs to be compared with.
Singular outliers can not and should not be used at the golden standard.
Paige Pierce shouldn't be the golden standard, nor should Juliana Korver, nor Vanessa Van Dyken.. Nor should Natalie Ryan.

It shouldn't be Natalie Ryan, it should be transgender women in disc golf vs cisgender women in disc golf.

Here's where I was going with "disproportionate" because of some arguments I've heard:

-The comparison should be whether there's a statistically significant advantage of the transgender women population in disc golf to cisgender women in disc golf...ideally with a relatively large population of each.

-The comparison should not be Natalie Ryan to any person or population.

-The comparison should also not be transgender women in disc golf to the top women in disc golf (this is the biggest argument I typically hear in favor of there being not advantage...they compare Natalie Ryan or a handful of transgender women to the top 5 cisgender women in disc golf. Not valid because neither group is a representative sample. But I also hear calls for comparing all transgender women in disc golf to the top cisgender women in disc golf. Also not a valid comparison....because if we find that the average transgender woman is statistically equal to the top cisgender woman...that's a pretty good indicator that an advantage exists).

Essentially, I think "disproportionate" advantage is just the incorrect term. It sounds like you're arguing for a proper population/sample selection...which is what it should be. There is/should be NO "golden standard". We should be comparing populations, not individuals.

 

[jenb]

I mean the Masters age used to be 35. When it was changed to 40, nobody said boo about any past Masters champions who were under 40 when they won. To me it would be stupid to think that anything would be done if a policy changed.

Maybe the comment was that an FPO world champ who was still competing would then have to stop competing?

 

[Three Putt]

........................

..............

Good grief ginger. medic is posting inquisitively and you brand him as disingenuous because he uses a pronoun you deem incorrect in a hypothetical question about something Paul hypothetically said he is doing? I don't understand the haste to strike out and disparage a person's character over a perceived misnomer.

Some of it strikes me like a work experience I had.

We had some long-term employees that really hated the idea that our workplace needed to change to keep up because that would change what they did every day. They liked being the people who knew what to do and they didn't want to become people learning a new way to do things. Whenever change came up, they would present the worst-case, doom-and-gloom scenario and act like it was certain that it WOULD happen and we MUST have a super-complicated, multi-step policy in place to protect us from said worst-case, doom-and-gloom scenario. The super-complicated, multi-step policy created this convoluted red-tape maze of perplexing requirements hodge-podged together in a way that made it impossible for anyone to actually do the thing the policy was supposed to allow them to do. We had a bunch of these policies when I started working that made no sense to me, until I watched some of them created in real-time.

We finally got a boss who swept house and tossed out all of the super-complicated, multi-step policies. We started actually providing services, and the worst-case, doom-and-gloom scenarios never happened.

From my experience, fixating on "Paul McBeth declares they are Paula McBeth" scenario is really of little use. It's not going to happen, and debating it makes it seem like it's a lot more likely than it is.

 

[gingerandhoney]

Good grief ginger. medic is posting inquisitively and you brand him as disingenuous because he uses a pronoun you deem incorrect in a hypothetical question about something Paul hypothetically said he is doing? I don't understand the haste to strike out and disparage a person's character over a perceived misnomer.

Calling a question disingenuous does not make the questioner disingenuous.
That difference is not even a subtle one. I make a very clear distinction between the two.
Having said that, I did, and do, and continue to, engage with medic5888.

If anyone has hopefully learned anything in these last three years with regards to transgender disc golfers; please be aware of pronouns and (dead)names.
Not that hard to remember.

I kept needing to point that out on the 85-page long topic dedicated to my 2019 win. The message did not change.
Nor has the whataboutism about Paul McBeth (including the problematic use of pronouns in that whataboutism). If medic5888 were the first person to ask me that question, I'd have responded less sharp; but would have still pointed out the problematic use of pronouns.
I don't care to count, but just on DGCR, I think I have seen the same whataboutism show up about 20 times already. It got old really really fast.
Not once, not even in jest, did someone say Paula McBeth, or "she" when asking this.

And it's not ME who deems the use of the "he" pronoun there incorrect.
Aside from the people who care to actively deny transgender people their existence, the world agrees on the need for the proper use of pronouns and names. In as many cases as possible.

 

[Golden Tuna]

Some of it strikes me like a work experience I had.

We had some long-term employees that really hated the idea that our workplace needed to change to keep up because that would change what they did every day. They liked being the people who knew what to do and they didn't want to become people learning a new way to do things. Whenever change came up, they would present the worst-case, doom-and-gloom scenario and act like it was certain that it WOULD happen and we MUST have a super-complicated, multi-step policy in place to protect us from said worst-case, doom-and-gloom scenario. The super-complicated, multi-step policy created this convoluted red-tape maze of perplexing requirements hodge-podged together in a way that made it impossible for anyone to actually do the thing the policy was supposed to allow them to do. We had a bunch of these policies when I started working that made no sense to me, until I watched some of them created in real-time.

We finally got a boss who swept house and tossed out all of the super-complicated, multi-step policies. We started actually providing services, and the worst-case, doom-and-gloom scenarios never happened.

From my experience, fixating on "Paul McBeth declares they are Paula McBeth" scenario is really of little use. It's not going to happen, and debating it makes it seem like it's a lot more likely than it is.

In keeping with a Corporate philosophy, what about an impact vs effort study here?

Overall, we're talking about <1.5% of the total population, MUCH less in disc golf. So, I still don't understand why we're catering to statistical outliers. The current state is that we do not have enough long-term, historical, data points to make an informed and logical decision. So, though it may be an unpopular opinion, (I think) we should probably wait to amend policy until we have data that supports such a change, lest we create policy for policy-sake as it seems your previous office manager did.

At the risk of sounding cruel, a target audience of this size is not meaningful enough to amend policy, create a unique advertising channels, dedicate sales resources, or even perform exploratory research, etc (in a business setting, unless this particular segment showed exponential CAGR).

How about a cost-analysis of this audience segment? What is the projection on current and long-term memberships of this audience segment? Is it enough to offset the cost of infrastructure changes?

DISCLAIMER: (I think) Everyone has an innate human right to dignity. I do not think competitive disc golf is an innate human right.

 

[gingerandhoney]

<snip> I agree <snip>

-The comparison should be whether there's a statistically significant advantage of the transgender women population in disc golf to cisgender women in disc golf...ideally with a relatively large population of each.

<snip> I agree <snip>

Essentially, I think "disproportionate" advantage is just the incorrect term. It sounds like you're arguing for a proper population/sample selection...which is what it should be. There is/should be NO "golden standard". We should be comparing populations, not individuals.

On the first piece I left, absolutely agree.
There is definitely a large enough sample of cisgender women in disc golf, 8,963 at this very moment.
There most definitely IS NOT a large enough transgender population (let alone a large enough population that can be identified as such, because they dared to come out in this harsh environment) of transgender women in disc golf.

Ergo. a scientifically satisfying number of data points to present for the transgender women in disc golf is absent, at which point, it can not be irrefutably be proven there is or is not a disproportionate advantage.
At which point the IOC Framework clearly states that the sports association in question should be deem these athletes to not having a disproportionate advantage, and as such, should not be withheld from competing in gender-based divisions.

second part.
Disproportionate is literally what the IOC Framework repeatedly and intentionall uses.
As such, it is not me argueing that a proper population/sample selection be made; it is the IOC mandating it.

and yes, we can not use a golden standard in this; I never claimed we should.
I mentioned it because people do tend to want to compare to player X.

 

[Arisugawa]

In keeping with a Corporate philosophy, what about an impact vs effort study here?

Overall, we're talking about <1.5% of the total population, MUCH less in disc golf. So, I still don't understand why we're catering to statistical outliers. The current state is that we do not have enough long-term, historical, data points to make an informed and logical decision. So, though it may be an unpopular opinion, (I think) we should probably wait to amend policy until we have data that supports such a change, lest we create policy for policy-sake as it seems your previous office manager did.

At the risk of sounding cruel, a target audience of this size is not meaningful enough to amend policy, create a unique advertising channels, dedicate sales resources, or even perform exploratory research, etc (in a business setting, unless this particular segment showed exponential CAGR).

How about a cost-analysis of this audience segment? What is the projection on current and long-term memberships of this audience segment? Is it enough to offset the cost of infrastructure changes?

DISCLAIMER: (I think) Everyone has an innate human right to dignity. I do not think competitive disc golf is an innate human right.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

If you exclude transgender athletes, you are still amending policy, still having to dedicate resources to publicity surrounding that decision, still have to defend that decision if the weight of science later puts your position in a much more negative light, etc?

 

[jenb]

Another way to approach it is to look at the upper end of capabilities of ciswomen in a particular sport or event and see if any transwomen exceed it. In the WPGA, that happened. A transitioner was out driving everyone and winning like crazy. The WPGA responded by banning transwomen from competing. In swimming (but only in sprints) that happened. A transitioner was setting record times. They banned trans women from competing in all events (not just sprints). In disc golf, a ciswoman (we presume) has the highest rating, annd many other ciswomen (we presume) have higher ratings than the highest rated transitioner. Another ciswoman (we presume) has the record driving distance. Numerous transitioners are competing and winning only occasionally. Why would the PDGA ban transwomen when all evidence so far supports that their abilities are in the range that is normal for ciswomen?

 

[gingerandhoney]

In keeping with a Corporate philosophy, what about an impact vs effort study here?

Overall, we're talking about <1.5% of the total population, MUCH less in disc golf. So, I still don't understand why we're catering to statistical outliers. The current state is that we do not have enough long-term, historical, data points to make an informed and logical decision. So, though it may be an unpopular opinion, (I think) we should probably wait to amend policy until we have data that supports such a change, lest we create policy for policy-sake as it seems your previous office manager did.

At the risk of sounding cruel, a target audience of this size is not meaningful enough to amend policy, create a unique advertising channels, dedicate sales resources, or even perform exploratory research, etc (in a business setting, unless this particular segment showed exponential CAGR).

How about a cost-analysis of this audience segment? What is the projection on current and long-term memberships of this audience segment? Is it enough to offset the cost of infrastructure changes?

DISCLAIMER: (I think) Everyone has an innate human right to dignity. I do not think competitive disc golf is an innate human right.

The IOC, who wrote and updated the guidelines on transgender and people with DSD (among which hyperandrogenism) certainly has a larger set of data points.

The IOC's current framework ( https://stillmed.olympics.com/media...airness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf )
stipulates that absent proof of a disproportionate advantage transgender women may have over cisgender women (in the gender-based divisions that said sports association/federation has authority over - PDGA and disc golf in our case), err on the side of inclusion.

A lacking or non-satisfactory number data points to verify such absence or presence of a disproportionate advantage should then lead to no exclusion of transgender women, because exclusion based on belief or assumption of said advantage should not occur.

What is your "<1.5% of the total population, MUCH less in disc golf" based on?
I am not saying you're incorrect, I am just wondering whether or not you are extrapolating from a very limited number of data points in disc golf.

 

[foxdawg10]

It took me a while to post because I kept getting caught up on the term cisgender. I understand the meaning, of course, it is someone who identifies as the same sex they were born into. And I understand it is a social construct just like gender is.

My hang up is that it is a way for a small minority of the population to define the majority of the population. A majority of people who are identified as cisgender likely would not consider themselves cisgender, so is it a valid term? When I was younger in college, we has some gay friends who jokingly referred to heterosexuals as Breeders. Sometimes it was humorously used other times it was meant to disparage. I absolutely sympathize with people who struggle in any way in life, whether it is with gender, or dysfunctional families, or financial hardship. We all have our own crosses to bear.

And most people who you call cisgender don't have the social or physcial advantages that you think they have. That is limited to a very very small minority, some who are straight, some who are gay, some who are transgender. As has been mentioned before, not all cisgender people are great athletes, or are rich, or have any other advantage that is assumed when they are called cisgender.

As far as it related to disc golf or any other sport my hope is that someday there are large enough populations to fill any division and any population who wants to compete. Heck, I am a 50 something year old male, and I have tapered my competitive disc golfing for a number of reasons.

 

[foxdawg10]

This also seems like an issue of privilege and entitlement. It is very expensive to have this operations and procedures. How many can afford this? In a system of limited resources and costly medical insurance, where do you set the priorities? I know people who are on waiting lists for organ transplants who either can't afford it, have to struggle with insurance coverage, or just can not find a donor. Where do you draw the line on what is important and what is not? Is coverage for someone who needs an organ to live more important than coverage for someone who needs a surgery to be who they were born to be?

I and my employer pay a ton of money into a crappy insurance system that forces me to pay another ton of money just so I can utilize that insurance. Shouldn't I have a say on where my insurance premiums go? This is a deeper issue than just who gets to play disc golf for a living. Real people are struggling every day with paying medical bills. What is more important? Someone who is lucky enough to be able to afford the transition playing a game for a living, or someone who needs a treatment for themselves or their kids?

 

[gingerandhoney]

It is not the small minority of the population that coined this term, it's the scientists and medics who look after the physical and mental well-being of said small minority of the population who did.

No one is forcing you to refer to yourself as cisgender, but that doesn't make you not-cisgender.
It is a scientific classification, to be able to distinguish between transgender and those not-transgender.
Put differently, what term would you use to describe not-transgender people?

Only coming out as transgender (and that includes the whole non-binary spectrum, as they too, perceive a mismatch between their experienced and assigned gender) makes one not-cisgender.

-

The way you write about it, and make the connectiong to Breeders, makes it appear as if it was a (sometimes to humour, sometimes to disparage) but probably ultimately derogatory term, coined by transgender people to label non-transgender people; it is not.

In fact the term was coined by Dana Leland Defosse, a biologist who coined the term in 1994; see https://www.historians.org/research...rminology-researching-early-uses-of-cisgender

Cis and trans are common terms in chemistry, biology, genetics, and even geography, to describe "on this side of" and "on the other side of".
For more details on that, LMGTFY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisgender

That people who, by that definition would now be called cisgender, don't see or label themselves as cisgender is irrelevant; it is a classification thing.
Pluto, the celestial body we used to refer to it as a planet, then it wasn't anymore, because it was classified a dwarf planet.
Did anyone ever bother to ask or tell Pluto?

Cisgender and transgender is simply a scientific way to describe the two scientifically opposite groups of people.

--

I am not sure at all of what your intention is with the paragraph that follows "cisgender don't have all the social or physical advantages you think they have."

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say you're talking about "privilege"; do correct me if I am wrong.
If so, here is how privilege works:

Yes, cisgender do explicitly experience privilege that transgender people don't have.
That is not something I have claimed until just now, writing that.
That does not mean all cisgender people have more privilege, but far more cisgender people do so than transgender people do.
Just like men have more privilege than women do.
Just like white people have more privilege than non-white people do.

I have far far less privilege nowadays, as a transgender woman, than I ever had as a - perceived as cisgender - man.
I still have a fair amount of priviliege because I am perceived to be white (I am far more mixed race than people assume I am).

And a physical representation of privilige is this oft-repeated experiment on white-privilege: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZuucE4R65Q

 

[gingerandhoney]

This also seems like an issue of privilege and entitlement. It is very expensive to have this operations and procedures. How many can afford this? In a system of limited resources and costly medical insurance, where do you set the priorities? I know people who are on waiting lists for organ transplants who either can't afford it, have to struggle with insurance coverage, or just can not find a donor. Where do you draw the line on what is important and what is not? Is coverage for someone who needs an organ to live more important than coverage for someone who needs a surgery to be who they were born to be?

I and my employer pay a ton of money into a crappy insurance system that forces me to pay another ton of money just so I can utilize that insurance. Shouldn't I have a say on where my insurance premiums go? This is a deeper issue than just who gets to play disc golf for a living. Real people are struggling every day with paying medical bills. What is more important? Someone who is lucky enough to be able to afford the transition playing a game for a living, or someone who needs a treatment for themselves or their kids?

Yes, to get gender-affirming healthcare costs a great deal of money.
To get mental healthcare because someone denies that transgender person gender-affirming healthcare is more of a financial and resource burden on both the health care system and the health insurance system (and as such, who pays into it).
As is the financial burden on health care to try and keep yet another attempted suicide victim alive by a transgender person denied their existence.

The same "unfair financial burden on health care budget" claim was used when President Trump decreed that transgender military personnel could no longer serve if they sought gender-affirming healthcare. (Citing military readiness as a secondary consideration).

Except that just the cost of viagra dispensed to military personnel dwarfed gender-affirming healthcare to military personnel by a factor 5!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-it-would-on-transgender-troops-medical-care/

 

[txmxer]

Shouldn't I have a say on where my insurance premiums go?

Probably need to think that through.